Cases 51 - 60 of 156
Ghanbari v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 4:2022cv00963
Defendant:
Director Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID and Ali Ghanbari
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Whitaker v. Lumpkin
as 9:2022cv00185
Petitioner:
Nathaniel J Whitaker
Respondent:
Director Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Coleman v. Lumpkin
as 9:2022cv00176
Petitioner:
Jumanne O Coleman
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Howell, Jr. v. Bridges et al
as 9:2022cv00161
Plaintiff:
Cecil Howell, Jr.
Defendant:
Sean B. Bridges, Michael A. Byerly, Jr., John D. Lackey II and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Coleman v. Lumpkin et al.
as 6:2022cv00370
Plaintiff:
Edward James Coleman, Jr.
Defendant:
Director, TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin and Brown Collions
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Coleman v. Lumpkin et al
as 9:2022cv00145
Plaintiff:
Edward James Coleman, Jr.
Defendant:
Director, TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin and Brown Collions
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cromey v. Rupert et al
as 6:2022cv00371
Plaintiff:
Michael Guisto Cromey, Jr.
Defendant:
Warden John Rupert, Director Bobby Lumpkin, Vice President Leann Bertsch and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McCullough v. Lumpkin
as 6:2022cv00318
Petitioner:
Jared D. McCullough
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McCullough v. Lumpkin
as 6:2022cv00314
Petitioner:
Jared D. McCullough
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Floyd v. Lumpkin et al
as 6:2022cv00294
Plaintiff:
Jalil Rajaii Floyd
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Bryan Collier, Nicole Sandifer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
